11 Kinds Of Bible Verses Fundamentalists Ignore
Valerie Tarico put this together:
1. Weird insults and curses:
She lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. Ezekiel 23:20 NIV…
2. Awkwardly useless commandments:
Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. Leviticus 19:19…
3. Silly food rules:
All that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you. Leviticus 9:10…
4. Holy hangups about genitals:
When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand. Deuteronomy 25:11-12…
5. God’s temper tantrums:
Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. 2 Kings 2:23-25 NIV…
6. Times when the Bible God is worse than Satan:
Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. Numbers 31:17-18…
7. Instructions for slave masters:
You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT…
8. Bizzare death penalties:
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21…
9. Denigration of handicapped people:
Whosoever … hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookback, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken … He shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries. Leviticus 21:17-23 KJV…
10. Moral edicts that demand too much:
Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same. Luke 3:11 NIV…
11. Passages that are a waste of brain space and paper:
…most of the Bible was neither horrible nor inspiring. It was simply dull and irrelevant: long genealogies written by men obsessed with racial purity; archaic stories about ancient squabbles over real estate and women; arcane rituals aimed at pleasing a volatile deity; folk medicine practices involving mandrakes and dove’s blood; superstition that equated cleanliness with spiritual purity and misfortune with divine disfavor; outdated insider politics.
Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
54 responses to 11 Kinds Of Bible Verses Fundamentalists Ignore
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
David Ish May 30th, 2015 at 22:05
I also reminds you that Jesus Christ said Give All to the poor.
Talkin_Truth May 30th, 2015 at 22:08
You and I think alike.
I’m a devout Christian, myself, and it make me ashamed that my religion is better known for who we won’t serve.
I have no doubt that Jesus would bake a cake for a gay couple.
burqa May 30th, 2015 at 22:56
The verses mentioned are found in the Law, and not in the Christian doctrine. Alan’s criticism is directed at fellow Jews who believe differentyly than he does. Unfortunately, though he can see distinct differences between various sects within his own faith, he tends to lump all Christians together and does not appear to understand there are similar differences between various sects.
Rather than engage in intelligent discussion of opinion regarding what people of faith are up to, Alan chooses to go the cheap route. It appears that quality of content takes a back seat to click stats used to determine ad rates.
You have nothing to be ashamed of as a Christian. You are not responsible for the kooks who get highlighted in order to attract listeners, viewers and/or readers to various media outlets any more than you are responsible for what kooks who are fellow citizens of the U.S. do.
Obewon May 30th, 2015 at 23:48
Young adults leave the Christian church and its dogma in the dust today because they aren’t stupidly in league with worshiping very well debunked comic book fables insisting that the 4.5 B year old Earth and 13.8 B year old universe were both born on Sunday October 23, 4004 BCE. https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm
Talkin_Truth May 31st, 2015 at 01:03
A fundamentalist reading of the bible may agree with you.
But mainstream Christianity doesn’t read the bible that way.
Anomaly 100 May 31st, 2015 at 06:45
i sure don’t. Most Christians I know don’t either.
Larry Schmitt May 31st, 2015 at 07:47
But there are some who believe this, which includes this gem: “The Bible contains God’s eyewitness account of history…” https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/extinction/dinosaur-extinction/how-did-dinosaurs-die/
Anomaly 100 May 31st, 2015 at 07:58
Oh, I realize that. I come from a fundie family and as the sole democrat, I’ve heard some outrageous views, but they don’t all adhere to it. I just broke ties with my Conservative sister for her views. We could be talking about the weather, then she’d tell me I’m part of “Black genocide” because I’m pro-choice.
I’m older now and don’t have to listen to that stuff.
Larry Schmitt May 31st, 2015 at 08:06
The part that always bothered me was when I read about people praying for rain (or any kind of weather). If you believe in the all powerful god, isn’t he responsible for the weather too? If he’s the one that sent the drought or the flood, why will prayers change his mind? It makes no sense.
Anomaly 100 May 31st, 2015 at 08:13
Well they can pray for rain, but doing so while hating the government who then rescues the state over and over again after they get the rain and floods ensue (see: Texas), then maybe they’re doing it wrong – also they deny climate change, so there’s a little bit of schadenfreude in there somewhere.
Or maybe God just has a sense of humor.
Larry Schmitt May 31st, 2015 at 08:16
The way I see it, if there really were a god, and he really were loving and just, nasty things wouldn’t happen to little kids and dogs, and people who did those things would suffer a very painful death. But we have plenty of evidence to the contrary.
Budda May 31st, 2015 at 09:02
So true.
burqa May 31st, 2015 at 19:35
Notice how the subject slides from Jewish Law to Christianity.
For quite some time now the crowd has objected to people looking for any opportunity to attack Jews.
Instead of figuring out that bigotry is wrong, the thing they do is find another group to attack with stereotypes that the crowd doesn’t object to.
What they do not realize is that, just as the crowd eventually turned against the Jew-hating, just as it eventually turned against the misogynists, just as it eventually turned against the racists, it will likewise eventually turn against the bigots who hate Christians.
I have no idea who their next target will be, but am sure they will find one. Some will figure out that bigotry directed against any group is wrong, but there will be plenty of lunkheads who do not. Therefore, future generations will have to waste a great deal of time and effort with this poison that brings so much senseless and unnecessary complications to life.
Bunya May 31st, 2015 at 19:47
“But mainstream Christianity doesn’t read the bible that way.”
Maybe they should. If Christians claim it IS the word of God, perhaps they shouldn’t deviate.
Dwendt44 June 1st, 2015 at 13:54
Most christians haven’t read the bible at all. The ‘selected readings’ or the chapter and verse handouts that the clergy gives them is as close as most get. Sitting down and actually reading the bible is a chore I’m unlikely to repeat; twice is enough.
burqa May 31st, 2015 at 17:24
I have read and reread your reply to me and fail to see how it relates to what I posted or the topic in the OP.
I find it interesting that you would use an expression such as BCE in reference to accurate reckoning of time when BCE is well-debunked as the starting point of Christianity, which I figure was about 1,987 years ago.
Looking at it sideways, in your picture, there seems to be a face in the fireball that reminds me of Jackie “The Jokeman” Martling.
Going back in time, wouldn’t the initial singularity have to occupy zero space? And nothing can exist in zero space, right? There wouldn’t be any matter or energy there, would there?
This doesn’t have anything to do with my post or the topic at hand either, but that doesn’t matter any more than the fact that Max Scherzer is outhitting the batters he faces (Scherzer is hitting .200, opposing batters are hitting .199 against him).
Obewon May 31st, 2015 at 17:59
1. Your bible wasn’t and isn’t the word of God or it wouldn’t be easy to debunk e.g. Universal age (x) 13.8 B = Earth age (y) 4.5 B = (z) 4004 BCE: ‘because the bible dates are God’s word (x, y & z = 6,014 year old universe AND Earth ages +/- 1 year.)
2. Quantum mechanics holds that two possible variables (a= yes or b= no) occupy the same qbit, until an observation is made. via Schrodinger’s theoretical cat, etc.
3. String theory holds that (existing) parallel universes collided spawning our universe 13.8 B years ago. Here is a pic defining where these parallel universe parents are very likely located. CERN is proving other universal big bangs right now.
burqa May 31st, 2015 at 19:25
You’re just not going all the way back.
When I was a college puke this kinda talk was thought to be “deep” in dorm bull sessions, We were so self-absorbed then, trying to appear brainy.
Nowadays I find such talk hollow. There’s no edification to it. I find a lot more meaning and purpose in phrases like “love your neighbor,” or “love your enemies,” or “there is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”
It’s not the words, but seeing them acted upon by thousands of people around me.
I have never heard anyone cite string theory or the age of the earth as the reason they were there at the tip of the tip of the spear feeding the hungry at any of the local soup kitchens.
This winter when it got real cold and we had more snow than usual, it was not the cawllege science club that opened up the cold weather shelter for the homeless (nor did they take a break from being brainiacs to help out at the regular homeless shelter, either. They were too busy ridiculing those who did).
To me, these things are far more important. I don’t know how much time I have left in this life, my remaining days may be few. I would much rather be remembered for the times I helped those in need than for being able to explain some arcane scientific theory that puts no clothes on the naked, puts no food in the belly of the hungry, fails to defend the weak or take a stand against the bigotry that poisons our society. Life is hard enough as it is without people looking for reasons to attack others and thereby introduce darkness where light is in such great need.
burqa June 1st, 2015 at 21:07
There are a number of others here who point out verses where Jesus told people to give to the poor, clothe the naked, house the homeless, etc.
What I find curious is how many of them are reluctant to discuss those in their communities who do so.
It’s the herd mentality.
The crowd does not approve of such things and it would be interesting to see their reaction should the herd ever decide that those who, in many cases, devote their whole lives to helping those in need, do not deserve to be lumped in with the kooks; but rather deserve praise.
Talkin_Truth May 30th, 2015 at 22:06
I’m fine with fundamentalists or any Christians ignoring verses like these.
What bothers me more is when Christian conservatives ignore the Golden Rule or the commandment to love our enemies.
Larry Schmitt May 30th, 2015 at 22:23
That bit about the man with a blemish “…that he profane not my sanctuaries.” I thought it was supposedly god who made everyone, including the blemished ones. What a strange sentiment toward your own. That is proof that the bible was written by men, and not inspired by any god.
Obewon May 30th, 2015 at 23:35
Ever eaten KFC or ground birds? KFC sinners are eternally damned to Hell, supposedly by God: “’These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they … 29 “’Of the animals that move along the ground, these are unclean for you.”-Leviticus 11. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+11 No God would be as dim as the Bable gawd.
Bunya May 30th, 2015 at 23:43
“She lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys
and whose emission was like that of horses. Ezekiel 23:20 NIV…”
This is also in the Qur’an. During a debate between a christian preacher and a Mujtahid, the preacher recited this verse and said to the learned Muslim, “Do you let your daughter read this filth?!?” and the Mujtahid replied, “Read it? She’s required to memorize it!”.
Dwendt44 May 31st, 2015 at 01:00
And that’s just the very short list. Most all christians pick and chose which bible verses to ignore (most all of them), and which to pretend to obey. The common come back of: “That’s Old Testament” when O.T. verses they don’t like or even they find ignorant or silly come up. But they can find plenty when it is in support of their opinion. i.e. The bible supports slavery, polygamy, child abuse, rape marriage, and killing those that don’t agree with you.
Talkin_Truth May 31st, 2015 at 01:07
>> Most all christians pick and chose which bible verses to ignore (most all of them), and which to pretend to obe
I’m a Christian and I admit that I don’t obey all the bible literally.
I don’t think the bible was meant to be obeyed in that way — especially the New Testament. Jesus modeled a godly life. He did not dictate a set of rules.
Dwendt44 May 31st, 2015 at 01:27
Jesus did add the 11th commandment. The one worth obeying.
The Golden rule goes back thousands of years, over 3000 years for sure.
Enoch_18 May 31st, 2015 at 13:03
What? You have destroyed any [remaining] sense of relativity in the Bible.
“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” – 2 Timothy 3:16
But then again, how else would the Episcopals get away with gay marriage unless they believed what you just said?
Larry Schmitt May 31st, 2015 at 13:18
So that means you take literally all those ridiculous rules in Leviticus that this story is about? How many people have you stoned today? Are all your clothes of unmixed fiber? If not, you’re part of the problem.
Enoch_18 May 31st, 2015 at 15:15
No, no, no.
First of all, learn your Bible. The Torah is not part of the New Testament.
Second, the law has passed away. “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” (Hebrews 8:13.) We are not obligated to keep these commands because they have passed away. Paul wrote an entire book about this, Galatians.
Finally, don’t call the OT laws ridiculous. They were given by God.
But my point was only that the NT was written to us. To ignore parts of it is foolish. If something in the NT is not for us, then it shouldn’t be in the Bible at all.
I’m afraid YOU’RE part of the problem.
burqa May 31st, 2015 at 18:56
Attacking Jews out of hand obsessively has become recognized as odious so what bigots do is:
1) Fail to learn the lesson that bigotry is wrong, so they
2) transfer their hatred to Christians because the crowd doesn’t object so much, kinda like the way they used to let Jew-hating slide.
By simply switching a few words they get to hang on to their hatred.
These are not the people who help society evolve in a positive manner through efforts like the civil rights movement, the women’s liberation movement or the gay rights movement. Rather, these haters are the ones who are in the way of such progress. Eventually their form of bigotry is recognized as being as wrong as Jew-hating, racism and sexism have been.
Given that these bigots have had so many examples to learn from but still persist in finding some “other” to hate, it is most likely they will simply find another group to hate once the crowd sees that bigotry directed against Christians is as bad as bigotry directed at Muslims, gays, immigrants, African Americans. etc.
Dwendt44 June 1st, 2015 at 19:36
I don’t find anyone attacking Jews, or your average christian for that matter.
This thread is about a book of fables and myth with some fictionalized history.
burqa June 1st, 2015 at 20:51
My description of people passing on attacking Jews is illustrated in your posts in threads such as this (and you have plenty of company.) It has always been thus with those who can’t step away from the crowd.
I take it you concede my other points you did not address.
The title of the thread tells us what it is about, which is not what you claim. Your claim as to the subject is ironically fictional,
Resorting to fiction, which is how you often open on various topics, met your need to take shots at those who believe differently than you.
Budda May 31st, 2015 at 09:03
#11 is worth saving for just those perfect moments…
craig7120 May 31st, 2015 at 09:08
Yeah, but the other stuff is true, right? Who hasn’t picked up a math book and found some of the equations to be completely bulshit? You have to trust the people that brought you the thought of paradise after death, ha! why not during reality? It’s a life guide, it’s not as if your soul is depending on it being right, wait, scratch that last thought.
Treat it like you tube, some good, some bad, some funny, some sad. Just humans being humans. If some want to believe a god wrote that book, I get to roll my eyes and say, rock on.
Emissions like that of a horse?
rg9rts May 31st, 2015 at 11:50
Farts
Kick Frenzy May 31st, 2015 at 13:41
They were, um… virile men.
Or more crudely put… they had big balls and lots of cum.
(But you probably knew that already.)
Jeffrey Samuels May 31st, 2015 at 09:37
I love the fact that right under the article is a ‘now read this’ :Josh Duggar scheduled to speak on how bible is life’s owners manual. The irony lol.
rg9rts May 31st, 2015 at 11:49
So virgin polyester is OK???
Hirightnow June 1st, 2015 at 07:51
How can you tell if they’re virgins?
Kuni Leml June 17th, 2015 at 15:47
If they can still outrun their Conservative voting fundamentalist fathers when they are six years old, they are probably still virgins.
FatRat May 31st, 2015 at 12:59
(2. Awkwardly useless commandments:
Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. Leviticus 19:19…)
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Bd6KTN-oodk/Uw0hkQI8qrI/AAAAAAAAJ1o/pMtB_w6VxTw/s1600/shazbot.jpg
Could very well be that the nomadic Israelite’s were keeping their group identity by not clothing themselves like the Cretinous Canaanites. lol
(Shatnez not Shazbot.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shatnez
Shatnez is cloth containing both wool and linen
Early writers, like Maimonides, state that the prohibition was a case of the general law (Leviticus 20:23) against imitating Canaanite customs. Maimonides wrote that: “the heathen priests adorned themselves with garments containing vegetable and animal materials,
…….linen is a product of a riverine agricultural economy, such as that of the Nile Valley, while wool is a product of a desert, pastoral economy, such as that of the Hebrew tribes. Mixing the two together symbolically mixes Egypt and the Hebrews. It also violates a more general aversion to the mixing of categories found in the Leviticus holiness code, as suggested by anthropologists such as Mary Douglas.[citation needed]
DogsRgoodpeople May 31st, 2015 at 13:19
The word of God………………….wannabes
robert May 31st, 2015 at 19:38
King james
old testament
New testament
take your pick witch rewritten book you want to believe ?
AmusedAmused May 31st, 2015 at 21:19
It’s not the fact that fundamentalists ignore these obscure verses, particularly the ones from Leviticus, but that they take a buffet-style approach to religion. For example, both homosexuality and kindling fire on the Sabbath are punishable by death, but the latter is clearly the more serious transgression of the two. Yet how many Christian fundies who foam at the mouth about gays forego appliances on the Sabbath? And I am yet to hear any coherent explanation as to why some Old Testament rules can be ignored and some should still rule our lives.
Here is the pattern I see, though. It requires effort and severe limits on one’s own life to keep kosher, to keep the Sabbath, to make sure your clothes aren’t made of mixed fibers. All those things are actually inconveniences. From the point of view of a Jewish theologian, all these rules are there to keep you actively observant and thinking about God every waking minute. From the point of view of a modern fundie, they are nuisances that take precious time away from monitoring other people’s use of their genitals and other aspects of strangers’ lives.
MarcoZandrini May 31st, 2015 at 22:17
One other thing that most folks forget: the OT was written in Hebrew, and the NT was written in Aramaic, Greek and perhaps a bit of Hebrew. Each of these languages has/had its own alphabet and grammatical rules. So, my questions are a) how many translations did these books go thru before being translated into English; b) how much did each language change from the time it was used in either book until it was first translated into another language? For all we know that prohibition on mixed fabrics could have originally a receipt for bad beer!
burqa June 1st, 2015 at 00:02
It has been a long time since I studied this stuff, but as I recall the OT and NT were originally written in Estrangelo Aramaic.
There are many more Greek and Aramaic manuscripts of the NT than the OT.
In ancient times, scribes were high-ranking, socially and considered quite important. There are many statues of scribes in the Egyptian section of the Louvre that giove an indication of how they were regarded in ancient cultures.
If you were to see an ancient OT manuscript, you would see writing in the margins around the text. This was to insure consistent copying of manuscripts. I have forgotten the Hebrew name for this, but it translates as “the fence” and was the same word used for a fence around a sheepfold that kept the flock in. What it consisted of was the number of words on the page and the number of words in the book. They would determine the letter that falls in the center of the page and of the book. They would count the number of times certain words appeared on the page and in the book. They counted diacritical marks, occurrences of certain phrases, all kinds of things that would help them double check to see if a manuscript was accurate.
This was not done with the NT, but we have thousands of manuscripts that survive. There are also many other things like pottery or other places where people would record verses or passages they liked and these copies can be compared. Letters between people who quoted various passages or discussed them survive, too, even if we don’t have the manuscript the letter-writer referred to. Many times manuscripts were copied by groups and when studied, we can determine by certain mistakes whether these groups copied them by taking dictation or by individually copying the same manuscript.
Sometimes we find places where a manuscript that was written in 500 AD more accurate than one written in 300 AD. This may be because the first one was copied from a manuscript that was older and more accurate than the second one.
These were not done by just anyone, even in the dark Ages there were many of these commissioned by kings who invested great sums of money in producing editions of Bibles that had writing in gold or silver and they wanted those things to be right.
We also have to remember that scribes and monks who copied these things devoted their lives to doing so. They were very careful.
The field is more complex than many imagine. There is a whole field of study on the size of the margins around the text and in the locations of pinholes where the paper or animal skin was attached to a board. There were 3 major centers where the NT was copied, Alexandria, Rome and Jerusalem. Communication between these centers was often limited or broken, just as the east and west were divided when the Roman empire divided.
So what we have is many, many ways to check and cross-check the text.
I spent years with these things and what I found remarkable is the amount of agreement between manuscripts copied in locations far distant from one another, hundreds of years apart. When we use the sorts of things I’ve described, errors pop up like oil in water and are not hard to identify when we let it do so and don’t try to force anything according to our prejudices.
I have heard many make the point you try to make, and none of them have really studied the subject. They just guess, using our 21st century culture and read in their own personal prejudices. It is quite amazing when we see how little variation there actually is and how little difference the variations actually make in the meaning of the text.
Dwendt44 June 1st, 2015 at 00:19
Even after it was translated into English, there are close to a dozen versions. The Catholic version is different that the Protestant version and that version has been changed numerous times since King James.
Bunya June 1st, 2015 at 00:34
There are more than just a dozen. There are literally thousands of versions of the bible. To this day the bible is being revised to fit the politics of the day. Any body can “revise” the bible to fit their beliefs. Heck, even America’s biggest hypocrite, Jimmy Swaggart, has his own bible. It’s called “The Expositor’s Study Bible”.
burqa June 2nd, 2015 at 16:58
You are correct about there being many versions out there (a version is different from a translation, by the way).
Near as I can tell, this is mostly done to make money. From time to time a new one comes out claiming to be superior to previous ones, but the accuracy of the claim is easily ascertained.
Typically in the introduction, they will name the group of scholars they put together to come up with the new version and you’ll see their sources listed.
They all work from the critical Greek texts referred to as Lachman, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Wordsworth. and Westcott and Hort (abbreviated as L, T, Tr, A, W. W&H). There are others, but these 6 are the major ones. There are a couple dozen other critical Greek, Aramaic and Latin texts they typically work with.
The fact that there are all these translations and versions presents no hurdle for a few reasons. One, they are all extremely similar. In many cases, including the errors.
Two, the critical Greek and Aramaic texts are available to anyone who wants to check it for themselves.
You guys don’t seem to be familiar with interlinears.
A good interlinear gives the text in, say, the King James, and has footnotes that tell you which of the critical texts contain the reading in question. There are also research principles used by researchers to determine what they believe to be the most accurate reading. As you can imagine, different methods of deciding which is more accurate can lead to disagreement.
Not long ago a woman I’ve never seen before post here got into it with me on this subject. Not knowing me or my familiarity with these texts and manuscripts, she tried unsuccessfully to bluff me and pretended to be knowledgeable of the field. She thought she could lie about what was in these critical texts and when I challenged her on them, she disappeared and I haven’t seen her back.
Somewhere in the impressive education she had (or claimed to have) she had never learned it is foolish to try to bluff someone who is knows more about the topic than you do.
Here and in my windy post below, I am giving some of the ABCs of the field. To discuss it the field with any accuracy, these things and a number of others they lead one to need to be mastered. It is a very arcane field and nailing down minor, nearly meaningless details often entail a lot of tiresome work. It’s not that hard if one has been well taught, but it is quite time consuming.
Bunya June 2nd, 2015 at 17:36
The bible, in my opinion, changes to conform to the political climate. Some of the books were omitted or left out of the modern editions. If you don’t have all the information, how can you know which is correct? Trees once listed a myriad of quotes from the Qur’an in an effort to convince me it was a violent religion. I wonder if he knew that some of the violent quotes from the original bible text have been recently “changed” so as to portray their god as a kind and loving god. In reality, the Qur’an mirrors the original bible almost exactly.
burqa June 2nd, 2015 at 20:14
I think the way it is used to justify various things politically changes as the prominent issues of the day change, but I don’t see a lot of changes in the text that would support that.
When I was working with manusctipts, critical texts and tracing differences in versions and translations, there are a handful of things I can show were left in even though they do not appear in any of the critical texts.
Overall I didn’t see much change.
Here’s a good example of a comparison to make, if you have a big bookstore like a Barnes & Noble or a well-stocked Christian bookstore.
Go in and find a Bible translated by George Lamsa. He worked from the Peshitta, an Aramaic text dated to the first century and used in the East. Remember, historically when the Roman empire divided. It was not just a political division, but a lot of other traffic was cut off including work on Biblical texts and schools of learning.
Compare that to, say, the King James, which as I recall, is based on a critical Greek text from about the 7th century. So we have 2 Bibles, based on texts hundreds of years apart copied in societies that were quite different and in large part isolated from each other and pick a passage and compare the two.
In terms of books of the Bible, the Catholics have a few extra books in the Old Testament and I have forgotten much of what I learned of them. I think, but am not sure that they were targums added at a very recent date, relatively. I don’t think they were in the Septuagint, for example.
For the New Testament, many of the manuscripts are fragmentary, but of those that include a complete text used anciently, they all not only had the same books, but they are all in the same order except one, and that one has the same order as the rest except that Revelation appears in a different place. I forget where, but my best guess is after the 4 Gospels.
I can’t comment on the Koran (or however it is spelled). I just don’t know enough about it and don’t have the time. Fortunately, I can sort of cheat by calling a good friend who is considered an authority on Arab culture, was a professor at Georgetown U. and trained U.S. diplomats on the culture. This included the Muslim faith, which is discussed at length in several books written by my friend on the topic.
If Trees is right (fat chance) then he needs to explain why so few Muslims are violent. Apparently the parts encouraging people to violence aren’t being believed and acted upon. If it isn’t working to produce that result, it isn’t worth bothering with.
I have not heard of any violent Biblical passages being recently changed. If so, there are too many resources out there on manuscripts and critical texts and too many people working with them for anyone to get away with significant, unwarranted changes.
One thing I find interesting is how Christianity (which I am familiar with) has been preached differently at various times. Just like so many other things, there has been an ebb and flow to what gets emphasized at various times in various places.
One thing I have kept in reserve during the times we have discussed Deism is my historical reading on the subject.
I’ll go ahead and tell you that what those I have debated with are unaware of is a massive revival that began here in the 1740s or so and continued well after the Constitution was adopted. There were some very interesting developments and variation in what was preached in various parts of the country.
The historic revisionists who try to say the Founding Fathers abandoned Christianity for Deism don’t discuss what was taking place and those here who repeat that stuff without actually reading history for themselves will one day be given even more by me on the topic they can’t respond to.
Bunya June 3rd, 2015 at 11:54
One thing I know for sure, the bible has been revised and altered hundreds of times over the years. The Qur’an is original and mirrors the ORIGINAL bible. Unfortunately, over the centuries, the bible has been changed. Many of the more violent texts have been revised so as to appear less violent. Many books, such as the writings of Peter, Judas Iscariot and Mary Magdeline, have been left out of the new testament. If Jesus is the son of God, as Christians believe, I would think the assessment of these people would be pertinent and would be included. Revising the bible, in my opinion, alters God’s message. Who knows what else has been added/removed to accommodate the message mortal man wants to convey?
.
Whether the founding fathers were deists or not, is irrelevant. My contention that the first amendment, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion….” also pertains to freedom FROM religion.
.
“…will one day be given even more by me on the topic they can’t respond to.”
And, as always, we look forward to ignoring your supercilious responses.
Kevin James McAllister January 23rd, 2016 at 16:45
You clearly read something that told you all of this but most of it is wrong. The books of the Bible have rarely changed, and we’re aware of most of the changes since we’ve found much older manuscripts in the last couple hundred years, showing what is more like the original text than the sources King James and others used.
The “writings of Peter, Judas Iscariot, and Mary Magdalene” are all known to have been written in the late second or third centuries, meaning they weren’t actually written by those people, but at least a hundred years after they’d have died. The reason they’re not included is because most churches/communities didn’t see them as Holy Scripture. Our Bible has the books it has because that was what was agreed upon by all the communities. Something called “the Shepherd of Hermas” almost made it in, and “Revelation” almost did not.
Bunya January 25th, 2016 at 09:49
It doesn’t matter. You have no proof that anything in the bible is the original word of God, or that whether or not the writings of Peter, Judas and/or Mary Magdalene were written after Jesus died. How do you know Jesus was the son of God? From the same book that gave us misogyny and bigotry? The same book that gave us “Noah’s ark”? Or Jonah and the whale? Give me a break.
I see many a Christian eating shellfish, dressed in their polyester blend pants, on a Sunday afternoon screaming at gays because they’re “sinners”.